Friend said that his flight a couple of months ago had a landing aborted and they went directly over downtown.

That's the reason we can't have tall buildings :(

I’ve lived downtown for over a decade and can honestly say I’ve never seen a commercial airliner flying low right over downtown. When you say aborted landing, do you mean they were on the regular approach to SAN then something happened and they had to suddenly climb again? Why would that have to be over downtown? It’s certainly possible, but I’ve noticed a lot of out of towners will say “we went right over downtown” when the flight lands the normal flight path because it’s closer to downtown than they’re used to but not actually over the central part of downtown.

The thing I find strange is that when tall buildings were being constructed like the new courthouse, they left cranes up for long periods of time that were taller than OAP. They were probably up to about 600 ft. If it’s so dangerous, why do they allow this? I still also question whether a >500 footer in east village would have an impact on the flight route since it’s further from the airport than say the area where OAP is. Anyway, I know people hate the “endless” debate about downtown’s height limit, but I had to chime in :)

I know I sound like a broken record here, but any update on the Ritz project 7th/Market?

It’s now been over 4 months since the city won their lawsuit. Did the suing parties appeal? I drive by there every day hoping to see that nasty surface lot closed down ready for demo but nothing. It will be a shame if yet another project for that site gets cancelled.

The FAA had a big problem with those cranes, I read an article about it. Can't remember where. Even if you're not building in a airport overlay zone the FAA makes the developer sign documents certifying the final maximum constructed building height(or something close to that phrase). However I don't recall seeing anything in that paperwork about temporary structures(cranes, scaffolding, etc.).

Maybe it slipped through?

Hard to say but I suppose there were daily fines imposed and attorneys involved. I also can't imagine how they'd construct that building in that tight space without the "Luffing Jib" tower crane they used(I guess that's what they're called) instead of the more traditional "Hammerhead" tower crane.

Who knows. It was nice to see something, albeit temporary, rise above the the plateau skyline though.

I've got a question too. What's the story with the parcel next to America Plaza, across the street from the Museum of Contemporary Art SD Station? As far as I can remember it's been like that. A started and stopped high rise that barely made it above grade but they kept the subterranean parking?

Just wanted to share few shots of downtown that I took recently:

Pacific Gate looks great lit up at night. Not the best pic since the lighting at the top of the tower should look like the horizontal portion.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4770/...47357aa0_z.jpg

Lucinda St. view
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4784/...945ae6db_z.jpg

Along Harbor Dr.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4672/...ec498635_z.jpg

From Harbor Island
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4746/...45176406_z.jpg

From Shelter Island
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4615/...f60b3689_z.jpg

Got lost on the car rental center and got a good view of the skyline at night, love how Pacific Gate is lit up!

https://i.imgur.com/1CkkihA.jpg?2

Here's an article about the crane issue. FAA allowed it to go up to 580 feet, putting an end to a lawsuit filed by the County Airport Authority. So there's some precedent for allowing taller structures, but only temporarily.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...t27-story.html

That was supposed to be Two America Plaza. I think all the foundations are there for an office tower, but it was never built. There's an underground parking garage there, but that's it. I can only find older articles (6+ years old) about it:

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/...site-citys-r/#

I have always wondered about this "2 America Plaza" site its been sitting there for 25 years now in a prime spot and we never hear anything about it. Who owns it? Irvine Company? They say developers are lining up to bid on and build at the old courthouse site on broadway (which should be demolished soon) but why wouldn't they be salivating over that parcel next to train, museum, iconic trolley station? Strange...:shrug:

The Class A office market is barely coming back (the first new Class A construction in years is Block D in Makers Quarter, and that's just six-stories).

So before another Class A 400-footer gets built, the demand needs to be there.

Will it ever come? The Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Partnership, and all the other cheerleaders would certainly like you to think so.

Lest us not forget Manchester Gateway's project that will boost supply likely sooner than 'Two America Plaza' becomes a reality.

Happy monday

What is the root of the struggle to attract substantial office demand? Location (as a far southwest city), our proximity to LA, or the airport limitations?

Our industries and geography aren't conducive to downtown high-rise office development. Defense is based, well, on base or contracted in industrial zones. Tourism/hospitality doesn't have much use for office outside of corporate headquarters, which we have few because of our limited air, land, and sea connections. Tech/Biotech/Telecom is all clustered north of downtown in pseudo-suburban office markets. Healthcare sticks to hospitals, which none are downtown.

Basically, our downtown office space is for government, banks and finance, legal and accounting firms, and random other small to maybe medium businesses which aren't growing. If anything, most of those industries are being disrupted by tech and are consolidating. Unless downtown starts attracting sizable tech companies, we won't see much growth (UCSD's expansion may help with that, but Qualcomm looks like it's about to disappear so...).

From what I've heard, the lack of foot traffic (residential).

Awesome post.

Agreed. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

California Theater demolition halted:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...305-story.html

Would better air connection change the narrative on SD as a global HQ city? If it would, our strategy on the current airport is dramatically flawed.

I agree with 90% of what you said. The exception would be air connections and overlooking the business climate of CA.

San Diego International is extremely well connected domestically and increasingly so internationally over the past couple of years. From SAN you can get to Japan, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, and China (via TIJ). Having as many flights as LAX would be a benefit, but I don't think this is anywhere near the top of the list as to why office construction is slow in DTSD.

Agree that key industries such as biotech tend to favor office & lab space in suburban campuses as opposed to high rises. Same for defense industries. Hotel/tourism businesses don't use much office space, most of their real estate space is the hotels themselves.

Here are the major factors which I believe is impacting office space in San Diego (#3 and 4 apply to many other cities as well)...

1. Businesses don't want to headquarter in California
2. Many businesses would prefer to headquarter in LA as opposed to SD since the costs are comparable.
3. Most highrise space (particularly outside NYC) was/is built for banks/finance and very large corporations. Regarding corporate headquarters, see #1, #2. Key industries such as biotech tend to favor office & lab space in suburban campuses as opposed to high rises. Same for defense industries.
4. Telecommuting has impacted the office market in many cities. A good portion of my company's workforce is outside of the office. Many cities are not seeing much office development, and many are seeing office buildings re purposed as residential.

In a nutshell, many business (including banks and corporate HQ) have consolidated and have chosen their HQ locations carefully. Headquartering in San Diego/California is a nonstarter for most considering the business climate. LA and SF aren't seeing many businesses relocate there with the exception of companies that need to be there for strategic reasons (be closer to the epicenter of tech, hollywood, etc).

Agreed. I don't think the airport is a huge factor either, and even with our more recent international additions, we don't cater to business travelers since they're not a major market segment in SD because of reasons listed.

As for CA business climate, that is spot on.

Also, thank you for the compliments :)

Not surprised. Lol